On Thu, 2010-05-06 at 11:47 -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> Since we already have __add_wait_queue(), __add_wait_queue_tail() and
> __remove_wait_queue() (which all means "locked"), and while I agree in
> having the exclusive-add wrapped into a function, I much better prefer a:
>
> static inline void __add_wait_queue_excl(wait_queue_head_t *head,
> wait_queue_t *new)
> {
> new->flags |= WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE;
> __add_wait_queue(head, new);
> }
>
> The patch you posted introduces a different naming, which leaves all the
> other __*() untouched, and wraps the already one-liner __remove_wait_queue()
> with yet another one-liner.
I concur, I always get confused by the _locked postfix (and its more
typing). Also, it goes against the lock data not code paradigm.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
